• Obama: "Marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol"
    236 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kagu;43606328]Your personal story on how you/your friends got 420blazeit baked but still physically/mentally performed well doesn't apply to everyone. Unless you have statistics to back it up, anecdotes don't replace evidence.[/QUOTE] hahah i don't care I'm not arguing I'm merely providing my experience. I will however call you out on being a cunt for assuming that just because I smoke weed that im "420blazeit smoke er erry day bra". Pretty god damn childish if you ask me.
[QUOTE=sltlamina;43605423]That's why we have a distinction between 'psychological' and 'physical' addiction. Over this recent summer holiday I've been drinking a LOT of alcohol. Like at home. I'll just have a few beers, watch videos, play games, etc. Do I normally do this? No. Why am I doing it now? ... Because I'm fucking bored. The suburb I live in is devoid of anyone I know; it's devoid of anywhere to go, or anything to do (it's a newly developed suburb, it's not had the time for anything fun to appear). Alcohol makes the nights slightly less boring. Is this healthy? No, probably not, but on the nights I'm not drinking alcohol I don't crave it - I just feel more bored than normal. Things aren't quite as funny or novel as when I'm slightly tipsy or drunk. This is a psychological addiction. On the nights when I'm seeing friends (if I'm not drinking anyway because that's often what people do when they go out) I don't need or think about alcohol because I'm preoccupied - I'm having fun. When I go back to uni I won't be drinking just out of boredom because I'll spend the days occupied, and a lot of nights I'll have assignments to do (and if I don't I'll simply be chilling out, or working). If I lived on my own I honestly imagine I'd be smoking pot instead of drinking (well, I'd probalby be doing both on different nights). Psychological addictions aren't as difficult to overcome. You don't get the withdrawal effects that you do from a physical addiction. If I don't drink at the moment for days or weeks at a time I feel no physically negative effects. At the start of the holiday I spent a week to two weeks with a persistent headache, back aches, etc from caffeine withdrawal. That's a physical addiction. Sit there all you want and tell yourself it's perfectly healthy to smoke pot on a daily basis, but it's not. If you're doing it that often it's an addiction of some form. A psychological addiction is in many ways better than a physical one (and in some I think it's worse), and it may not show any true, negative effects when you stop it, but it's still an addiction, and you're still making an 'unnatural' psychological way of existing your baseline for existence which I think is fundamentally unhealthy. The entire point of doing drugs is to experience a different state of mind, and when that becomes your standard way of experiencing the universe you're missing the point entirely and aren't truly appreciating the effects of that substance.[/QUOTE] Yeah that last line is cute and idealistic and all, but last I checked no one made you the authority on how people want to live and feel or whats best for every person.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43606402][URL="http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mental_Health_Letter/2010/April/medical-marijuana-and-the-mind"]Harvard Medical Journal[/URL] [URL="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/09595230412331289482/abstract;jsessionid=4C0D1A64020B403087660F9D38629AB3.f04t01"]Kelly, Darke, and Ross[/URL] [URL="http://bookshop.europa.eu/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/WFS/EU-Bookshop-Site/en_GB/-/EUR/ViewPublication-Start?PublicationKey=TD3207001"]EMCDDA[/URL] [URL="http://www.bmj.com/press-releases/2012/02/09/acute-cannabis-consumption-and-motor-vehicle-collision-risk"]British Medical Journal[/URL] To be fair, I only own the EMCDDA book, (class required it and so I have a slew of hefty books that have no other purpose than to help me in situations like this) but the other three sources can be found free online, the Kelly, Darke and Ross publication can be found if you have a valid college ID that has a library that includes it. (most do) There are more but these do the job fine and most of the research papers are behind paywalls that you can only access if you have a library/school that has access to them. (but you do get an abstract; fortunately my workplace gives me access to these) I frankly trust Harvard Medical far more than I trust a pothead to give me unbiased facts on the effects of THC.[/QUOTE] All these tell me is that the effects are subjective. Which makes a lot of sense. So assuming and generalizing that weed will effect everyone in a certain way is pretty naive, I admit, but im not the only one guilty.
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43607013]All these tell me is that the effects are subjective. Which makes a lot of sense. So assuming and generalizing that weed will effect everyone in a certain way is pretty naive, I admit, but im not the only one guilty.[/QUOTE] The effects of everything is subjective, but these materials also state, pretty definitively, that the risk of cognitive impairment and harm (due to vehicle collision) increases substantially with the use of cannabis. Even in alcohol use, no study says "if you drive drunk, you're going to get into a wreck," but they do say the risk exists and increases with further intoxication; and frankly, even with drunk drivers, it does depend on how the person reacts to said intoxication. However, the fact is, that cannabis use does affect mental ability, and slows down the neurological functions that you need in order to make rash, critical decisions in unexpected or sudden situations.
[QUOTE=TheDrunkenOne;43594699][url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/19/obama-says-marijuana-no-more-dangerous-than-alcohol/?hpt=hp_t2[/url][/QUOTE] ~*it's something*~
[QUOTE=Kagu;43606328]Your personal story on how you/your friends got 420blazeit baked but still physically/mentally performed well doesn't apply to everyone. Unless you have statistics to back it up, anecdotes don't replace evidence.[/QUOTE] Why doesn't it, besides because it doesn't fit with what you think, of course. Are you implying that literally everyone he knows is a special case?
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43607175]Why doesn't it, besides because it doesn't fit with what you think, of course. Are you implying that literally everyone he knows is a special case?[/QUOTE] Are you implying that biased anecdotal evidence from a stranger on the internet should be the determinant factor on whether or not people should drive while high? Under that logic, I know tons of alcoholics that would argue that they, and their friends, drive drunk all the time and haven't got into a wreck, so obviously it's not dangerous.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43607085]The effects of everything is subjective, but these materials also state, pretty definitively, that the risk of cognitive impairment and harm (due to vehicle collision) increases substantially with the use of cannabis. Even in alcohol use, no study says "if you drive drunk, you're going to get into a wreck," but they do say the risk exists; and frankly, even with drunk drivers, it does depend on how the person reacts to the intoxication. However, the fact is, that cannabis use does affect mental ability, and slows down the neurological functions that you need in order to make rash, critical decisions in unexpected or sudden situations.[/QUOTE] Well, to quote the Harvard Medical Journal on marijuana and the mind, "There's no question that recreational use of marijuana produces short-term problems with thinking, working memory, and executive function (the ability to focus and integrate different types of information). Although little research exists on medical marijuana, anecdotal reports indicate that some patients take the drug at night to avoid these types of problem" It affects people differently so you really cant say everyone is unable to make critical decisions while high. Though I agree it should be illegal to be high and drive, you cant say that because you are high you are incapable of preventing accidents, following safety regulations, and saving lives.
I know tons of alcoholics that can drive drunk without getting into accidents. It's still wrong you know.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43607195]Are you implying that biased anecdotal evidence from a stranger on the internet should be the determinant factor on whether or not people should drive while high? Under that logic, I know tons of alcoholics that would argue that they, and their friends, drive drunk all the time and haven't got into a wreck, so obviously it's not dangerous.[/QUOTE] Are you implying that with my statement that I'm trying to convince people to get stoned and drive? No, I'm saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with working with marijuana. It even makes unlikable jobs more bearable. Of course there are exceptions. Like working demolition or construction, but that's just the same as "if you took gravol today you may as well not come".
[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43607269]It affects people differently so you really cant say everyone is unable to make critical decisions while high. Though I agree it should be illegal to be high and drive, you cant say that because you are high you are incapable of preventing accidents, following safety regulations, and saving lives.[/QUOTE] I never said that people weren't capable of making critical decisions, but that in high-stress situations where fast paced thinking is necessary, the slowness of thought impairs people in how quickly they can react to said situation. If a little girl runs in front of the vehicle, most sober people barely think quickly enough to prevent the collision; the impairment of thinking due to cannabis use will obviously slow down the user even further. My point isn't that high people cause wrecks and are incapable of driving, rather, that the risk of collision due to slowness of thought it very real, and a very dangerous thing. The worst part, however, is that so many people seem to think that these negative effects are actually [B]beneficial,[/B] and that driving while under the influence makes them better drivers. This just isn't true; in a case where someone has some form of attention disorder, I can maybe understand the concept that marijuana use would help ease the nerves and aide in driving, but that is personal theory that I cannot back with evidence, so obviously I wouldn't suggest it or condone it. I have no problem with people recreationally using cannabis, just don't get behind the wheel while high, and you won't put people (and yourself) at higher risk of harm. It's not safe, and it's silly to argue with the driving statistics, even if you or people you know haven't had trouble yet. That's the point of statistics, they show that the risk increases, not that every person is going to get into a wreck when they smoke; it does show that the risk is both unnecessary and increased, and if you are high and need to go somewhere, take public transportation, let a sober friend drive you, or wait until you're sober. [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HybridTheroy;43607357]Are you implying that with my statement that I'm trying to convince people to get stoned and drive? No, I'm saying there is absolutely nothing wrong with working with marijuana. It even makes unlikable jobs more bearable. Of course there are exceptions. Like working demolition or construction, but that's just the same as "if you took gravol today you may as well not come".[/QUOTE] If you're working menial labor, I could understand where you might think working while high is no big deal, but real jobs that require rapid mental thought aren't workplaces wherein you can afford to be slow and relaxed. If you're a writer, go ahead and get stoned and write a great piece of surrealist fiction, fine by me. If you're a nurse, or an accountant, or a cook, I think every sensible person would agree we want the people taking care of us, doing our taxes, and cooking our food, to be in a mental state where they can react to problems and high stress situations. Would you want your grandmother's caretaker to be blazed as hell? Nursing homes are incredibly high stress environments, though you wouldn't believe it. Never heard of anyone who works a proper career claim they can work high or drunk; that's something reserved for people who work fast food or something. (hell, I've worked fast food, you can't be slow and relaxed there either)
the road seriously isn't the time or place to get high or get drunk, i don't see why people aggressively try to defend being able to do it there
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;43607427]the road seriously isn't the time or place to get high or get drunk, i don't see why people aggressively try to defend being able to do it there[/QUOTE] Selfishness. Pure selfishness. "I already do it, I want to do it, I should continue to be allowed to do it just because I want to." I'm more interested in why they have such an absolute inability to regulate themselves.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43607195]Are you implying that biased anecdotal evidence from a stranger on the internet should be the determinant factor on whether or not people should drive while high? Under that logic, I know tons of alcoholics that would argue that they, and their friends, drive drunk all the time and haven't got into a wreck, so obviously it's not dangerous.[/QUOTE] The thing is that anecdotal evidence is legitimate if there are enough people saying it, and I think that most everyone who you meet will say that they can drive perfectly fine high, and they'd be able to justify that to you (i.e. they have never gotten into an accident high)
If you think going by car when high is a ~fantastic spiritual journey~ or something, have your friend drive you, dont endanger others by being high at the wheel.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43607678]The thing is that anecdotal evidence is legitimate if there are enough people saying it, [/QUOTE] That is not true. You can have 100 alcoholics saying that they driver better drunk and that doesn't make it true. You can have 1000 people arguing that there is a floating teapot in the sky and that doesn't make it true. Anecdotal evidence has no place in a scientific discussion; anecdotal evidence is the reason pot is illegal in the first place, and you're arguing against the very same medical journals that are trying to get marijuana legalized simply because you do not agree with the portion of the medical journal that covers the negative effects of cannabis use. You can't say "oh this part of the journal says it helps with cancer and psychosis I believe that! 420 legalize" and then flip the page and say "oh this part says it impairs driving! that not true i drive high all the time and no one died! i am deciding to only believe the portion of the journal that i want to believe" [quote]and I think that most everyone who you meet will say that they can drive perfectly fine high, and they'd be able to justify that to you (i.e. they have never gotten into an accident high)[/quote] And I think that most everyone who you meet will say that they can drive perfectly fine drunk, and they'd be able to justify that to me. But we both know that's bullshit. The only people who say they can drive fine high/drunk, are people who are so dependent on these substances, that they have become so vehemently defensive of their use, that they would actually argue that driving heavy machinery while under the influence is safe. And I'm positive, just as there are drunkards who will admit they cannot drive well while intoxicated, that there are pot smokers who know they cannot be behind the wheel while high, and they've even posted in this thread already. As a driver, I do not trust the biased opinion of a user to determine whether or not he can handle his vehicle while high. You cannot argue with the statistics and journals that I've already posted, and it's disgusting that someone would defend (so zealously) that they have some kind of right to drive while under the influence, and that they are not a greater risk to themselves and others.
[QUOTE=Advancedrock;43607678]The thing is that anecdotal evidence is legitimate if there are enough people saying it[/QUOTE] You realize that that line of reasoning can be used against you right? "I saw a bunch of rabbits across the street while high on weed." "Me too." x 100 Conclusion: Getting high on weed makes you see rabbits
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;43605777]Well normally when rhetoric shifts slightly like this with politicians it normally means they're gradually moving their position rather than doing it suddenly and shocking the members of the public who aren't as sympathetic to whatever cause it is. He doesn't want to come out and say "weed is great" or "weed is much safer than alcohol" because that would bring more controversy than pussyfooting like this and may hit his popularity.[/QUOTE] Sounds great in that case. I'm only very slightly into politics so I appreciate the explanation.
I'm not exactly what you might all "into politics" either (well insofar as mainstream politics) so take it with a pinch of salt. Just based on what I've observed really :) It's also the subtle things like Bill Clinton when he was president saying he didn't inhale then Obama saying he did when he was in office and that that was the point. They can sometimes mark shifts in attitude or approach with small hints like that. It would be nice if they were open and honest instead and said what they meant instead of all this damage control PR "oh no my popularity might go down so I'll only hint at this" horse shit but still...
the only kinda jobs i think it'd be inappropriate to smoke weed at would be like, jobs where you're operating heavy machinery and shit like that
I don't think it will ever be legal federally simply because we need the DEA to crack down on mexican drug cartel operations here in the US, but I think the DEA should respect state's rights and shouldn't arrest owners of dispensaries when they are perfectly legal and legitimate businesses.
[QUOTE=UziXxX;43612362]I don't think it will ever be legal federally simply because we need the DEA to crack down on mexican drug cartel operations here in the US, but I think the DEA should respect state's rights.[/QUOTE] i think being able to buy legal weed from american growers & dispensaries would end any control the cartels have on marijuana, unless they were willing to try the shit they do in mexico in the USA which i really don't think would work
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43612199]the only kinda jobs i think it'd be inappropriate to smoke weed at would be like, jobs where you're operating heavy machinery and shit like that[/QUOTE] yeah i love it when my doctors and lawyers are stoned outta their mind [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Lachz0r;43612383]i think being able to buy legal weed from american growers & dispensaries would end any control the cartels have on marijuana, unless they were willing to try the shit they do in mexico in the USA which i really don't think would work[/QUOTE] marijuana is only a small fraction of cartel operations most of their efforts are related to opiates, drugs like cocaine, and human trafficking legalizing marijuana would have hardly any effect on their power [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=JustExtreme;43612086]It's also the subtle things like George Clinton when he was president saying he didn't inhale then Obama saying he did when he was in office and that that was the point. They can sometimes mark shifts in attitude or approach with small hints like that. It would be nice if they were open and honest instead and said what they meant instead of all this damage control PR "oh no my popularity might go down so I'll only hint at this" horse shit but still...[/QUOTE] ah yes george clinton the great funk musician
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43612403]yeah i love it when my doctors and lawyers are stoned outta their mind [editline]20th January 2014[/editline] marijuana is only a small fraction of cartel operations most of their efforts are related to opiates, drugs like cocaine, and human trafficking legalizing marijuana would have hardly any effect on their power[/QUOTE] okay yeah doctors would maybe be a bit far too, especially for a guy like me if i was a doctor, once i get started on one drug i just want more and more and more keeping me around the medicine cabinet would be a bad idea. lawyers i don't see how that would be too bad, you can get pretty good at arguing stupid shit when you're stoned. and actually marijuana is a huge portion of cartel operations lol [url]http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/study-legalization-cut-cartel-profits-by-30[/url] and despite that, i was more referring to effecting their power in the USA rather than in mexico
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;43612438]okay yeah doctors would maybe be a bit far too, especially for a guy like me if i was a doctor, once i get started on one drug i just want more and more and more keeping me around the medicine cabinet would be a bad idea.[/QUOTE] quaint but glad you're at least open about it [quote]lawyers i don't see how that would be too bad, you can get pretty good at arguing stupid shit when you're stoned.[/quote] dont think you get how law works; 90% of a lawyer's time is spent out of the courtroom, and even then, you're not arguing and there are very strict procedures while in the courtroom; the lax view of how most careers operate is a bit idealistic [quote]and actually marijuana is a huge portion of cartel operations lol[/quote] Depends on the cartel; Los Zetas don't even run marijuana as much as they used to cannabis trade works as the foundation of cartels, allowing the funds to engage in more profitable illegal activities (harder drugs, human trafficking, extortion, racketeering) legalizing marijuana would weaken cartels, but it wouldn't damage them significantly enough to help anyone; it'd just shift their efforts to another illegal good they can get across cheaply hell most of them are at a point of self sustainability due to infighting
[QUOTE=PredGD;43595119]the more you know, thought hash was mixed with other chemicals too[/QUOTE] Hash/oils are the cannabinoids dissolved out of the plant matter and concentrated to an oil/solid. When making it, if you're not careful, you'll get a lot of chlorophyll too but all that does is make the smoke/vapor less pleasant. edit: this is generally done with high proof (90%+) alcohol, heat and pressure, so you can blow yourself up if you're a fuckwit
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43612511]quaint but glad you're at least open about it dont think you get how law works; 90% of a lawyer's time is spent out of the courtroom, and even then, you're not arguing and there are very strict procedures while in the courtroom; the lax view of how most careers operate is a bit idealistic Depends on the cartel; Los Zetas don't even run marijuana as much as they used to cannabis trade works as the foundation of cartels, allowing the funds to engage in more profitable illegal activities (harder drugs, human trafficking, extortion, racketeering) legalizing marijuana would weaken cartels, but it wouldn't damage them significantly enough to help anyone; it'd just shift their efforts to another illegal good they can get across cheaply hell most of them are at a point of self sustainability due to infighting[/QUOTE] just gonna say i'm in favour of the legalization of all drugs [editline]21st January 2014[/editline] but i don't think drug laws should be dictated by the effects they will have on criminal organizations (but that is a factor, just like it was with prohibition) but more by the effects they will have on the lawful public (kind of an oxymoron atm due to most drug use being illegal)
[QUOTE=Loriborn;43612511]quaint but glad you're at least open about it dont think you get how law works; 90% of a lawyer's time is spent out of the courtroom, and even then, you're not arguing and there are very strict procedures while in the courtroom; the lax view of how most careers operate is a bit idealistic Depends on the cartel; Los Zetas don't even run marijuana as much as they used to cannabis trade works as the foundation of cartels, allowing the funds to engage in more profitable illegal activities (harder drugs, human trafficking, extortion, racketeering) legalizing marijuana would weaken cartels, but it wouldn't damage them significantly enough to help anyone; it'd just shift their efforts to another illegal good they can get across cheaply hell most of them are at a point of self sustainability due to infighting[/QUOTE] You do know lawyers when doing research at the office or at home wouldn't be weakened by being high. You do know a LOT of lawyers are functional drinkers and work from home. Source, a literal life time of lawyer families.
For me, the president comparing an illegal drug to a legal one is the same as You or I saying that it should be legal. He can't really just come out and say it, but he can compare it to something that is already legal, implying that marijuana should also be legal.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;43612733]Source, a literal life time of lawyer families.[/QUOTE] Anecdotal. Doesn't really matter. Sourcing personal experience doesn't provide anything tangible. I could say I knew pothead lawyer families that lost every case and now live on the street; it doesn't reflect the actions of the majority and you can't treat it as standard for every lawyer. Even then, yes, research isn't a stressful part of the job, and as long as they know what they're doing and look over everything thoroughly, they're not going to majorly fuck anything up. Marijuana is different than alcohol though, and you don't know how all lawyers would react to such stuff; it also matters what kind of cases they take on, be they small time civil cases, or murder cases. Makes a difference. Same with whether or not they work for a firm. Like I said, if they can do it, fine; if they run their own firm, and they win cases, more power to them, but in the cases of "one fuck up and you ruin someone's life," (like in the case of driving or being a doctor or nurse) there is no room for an unclear mind. Though I guarantee you if a client finds out his or her lawyer is a pothead, he won't be very happy. I mean, would you trust your lawyer or doctor if he was an alcoholic?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.